Glass slide mounts vs glass holders?

[bdial]

I am curious what anyone's experience has been using glass slide mounts and standard scan holders vs glass holders.
I am looking at options for scanning some of my non-standard film (super siides, mostly). And hoping to save a little money, possibly.
The rig I'm working with for this is my newly resurrected Coolscan 8000.

A box of MF glass mounts and a MF mounted slide carrier isn't much less than the Nikon glass holder, but $'s count for a lot lately.

Opinions? Experiences?

TIA

 

[glhs116]

You don't need glass for mounted film unless it is badly curled. It will be a tiny bit sharper without the glass if it is flat. If it is curled and you can't use the MF mount and stretch it flat then it will be sharper kept flat between some glass (if you can defeat the newton rings).

Sam

 

[bdial]

Thanks Sam.
My problem is that some of my cructial scans will be of "super slide" format which is a 4x4 cm image in a 2x2 inch mount. The mount is the same as a 35 mm mount, but the image is too large for the opening Nikon provides for in the mounted slide carrier. But the 2x2 mount is too small to fit the 120 carrier.
For this particular project the glass is more useful because it can take any size, than for flatness, but flatter is always better.
What I'm contemplating is remounting my 4x4 film into a full size glass mount for 6x6 and using that with the MF mounted slide carrier.

 

[glhs116]

It is a shame that the carriers are so expensive. I saw one guy who hacked his 35mm strip carrier by altering the binary code of holes at the front so it got recognised as the MF carrier. That way it would scan a much larger area.

If you did that to your slide carrier AND enlarged the openings you would be able to do what you want. But it would be less convenient and you would be chopping at a very expensive piece of plastic.

Sam